Sorry, I had accidentally replied only to you. – and then added the user list instead of devel. Oh my depression brain.
On 08/08/2026 16:55, David Kastrup wrote:
Simon Albrecht <[email protected]> writes:If they would not, in effect, be nested book environments, then they shouldn’t be declared as such in the input file, I think. What about defining a new kind of environment that simply wraps up a number of elements (like \scores and \markups) to be output in sequence, without specifying their use in \bookpart or \book? I don’t think I have the right catchy name for that, but something like \outputSequence {} \outputColumn {} \outputLines {} if you get what I mean?What is wrong with a \bookpart?
It causes a page break, and I understood your goal was to allow for the greatest possible flexibility in reusing segments of a project inside/outside of \book and \bookpart. That was me reading between the lines, which I felt to be necessary.
If you want to think of things as mere text, you can use include, but then they _are_ mere text without inherent structure, and depending on the syntactic context they are included in, the structure may become different or incoherent. There is a reason text-based macros are a nightmare. You cannot use them as black box. You cannot rely on them being interpreted in a particular manner.
I don’t understand. Are you arguing against using \include to modularise a project? Of course using it always requires smart handling of what’s inside and outside any \includes.
Best, Simon
